Essay Prompt:  This speech was delivered in the J. W. Marriott Hotel in Washington, D. C.,  on April 6, 1990, at a luncheon meeting during a three-day convention for the highly influential American Society of Newspaper Editors.  The ASNE is influential because its members determine editorial and news policy on daily newspapers and four wire services throughout the United States and Canada.  Then write a carefully reasoned essay evaluating the effectiveness of the argument for changing editorial policy.  Notice how Rather establishes a favorable rapport (ethos) with the audience by balancing logical and emotional appeals.

Thank you, ladies and  gentleman, Jack and I especially appreciate that overly generous introduction.  Ladies and gentleman, you know what Abe Lincoln said about introductions such as that:  ìNever take time to deny them, the audience will find out the truth soon enough for themselves.î

Iím also reminded of one of Winston Churchillís trips to the United States, on one of his speaking tours, when he was waiting in the wings to come before a group not too dissimilar from this one.  And one of his aides said, "Sir, you should feel terrific.  Look at all these people whoíve come to hear you speak.  You must feel a great sense of satisfaction."  And Churchill said, "no, not really, because I know three times this many people would pay to see me hanged."

It may be widely believed in this room and beyond that Iím a follower of Colonel McCormickís maxim:  "Itís our job to print the news and raise hell."  I never really think of myself that way;  I certainly didnít start out to do that.

I was  taught  that one of the fundamentals of being a good journalist was to play no favorites, pull no punches and, insofar as is humanly possible, not to operate from a baseline of fear.  I was taught that by a man who is in the room this morning, the new editor of the Ankorage Alaska Times ,  my old Journalism teacher, the only one I had at Sam Houston State Teacherís College, Hugh Cunningham.  I hope youíll in dulge me ,when I ask you to recognize Hugh, as I recognize the debt that I owe him.

Hugh Cunningham.

Having said to you that, Hugh did not teach:  as a journalist your job is to print the news and raise hell.  I do  have ringing in my ears of all those times that then-professor Cunningham did  teach:  especially that a public journal, whether it be a newspaper or a magazine, a radio station or a television station, a public journal is a public trust.

Having said all that, Iím pretty sure that, when Iím sitting in my rocker on the porch in the old folkís home, that among my regrets will be that I didnít raise enough hell, not that I raised too much.

I do like the fact that the diminishing few good reporters left who believe in asking tough questions are asking some pretty tough questions these days about leadership.  Time  magazine put it most bluntly last fall with this cover:  "Is Government Dead?  UNWILLING To Lead, Politicians Are Letting The Country Drift Into Paralysis."

Davis Broder expanded the discussion a few weeks ago in the Washington Post.  The headline read:  "Nationís Capital In Eclipse As Pride And Power Slip Away."

Broder lays the blame at the feet of the politicians who are too weak to exert American influence in a time of global change.  Thereís a lot of talk around Washington about a pussyfooting Congress and a President who refuses to lead from the front.  Mark well, Iím quoting.

Most recently the New York Times  did a series on leadership in government being replaced by an obsession with public opinion polls.  Michael Orestes came up with some pithy quotes.

From Congressman David Obey, quote:  "Is American politics so brain dead that weíre reduced to having political shysters manipulate symbols?"

From Lee Atwater:  "Bull permeates everything."

That level of frustration and cynicism from government officials is disturbing, and itís news.  Itís good honest reporting, the kind of tough questioning weíre supposed to do to bring it to the publicís attention.

And I donít think we should go around apologizing to those who point out, correctly, that we in journalism are long on questions and short on answers.  For whatever itís worth, I think people should be suspicious any time reporters start seeing themselves as some kind of shadow government.  I also think people should be suspicious of reporters who are trying too hard to please the people they are covering.

Most importantly, I donít think we should apologize when our questions become too disturbing.  Weíre suppose to be honest brokers of information and our job isnít always to make America feel good about itself.  One of the things this country can feel good about is our history, our tradition of being a nation, a society of people who keep facing up to the tough questions and donít duck them.

But as we in journalism ask these tough questions, good honest reporting demands that we also face some facts about newspaper and broadcast news.

One of those facts is when it comes to leadership, we arenít in a very good position to be casting stones.  Thereís the cartoon showing the politician on a stump saying "If it is demonstrated to me that the American want leadership, I will by God, give them leadership."  Journalists denounce government by public opinion poll.  Good!  But we ought to acknowledge that our coverage is more and more driven  by whatís called market research and public opinion polls.

You and I both know the phone banks are humming.  "What kind of news are you most interested in hearing?  Are you more interested in medicine, consumer affairs, the Trumps, or Tiananmen Square?"  Some networks long ago started screening some news programs for what are called focus groups, trying to find out which stories are most popular, not which are most important, which stories are most popular.  And you know that focus groups have long been used by a lot of newspapers.

Market research purports to tell us that the public isnít clamoring for more news about government.  Stories about the national debt and trade deficits, weíre told, donít sell newspapers or broadcasts, and way too many of us use that to avoid covering issues that will shape our lives and those of our children.

Market research and the polls also tell us that international news isnít at the top of the publicís interest.  So sure enough the trend in coverage is away from, not toward foreign stories.

Last fall one of those fancy thinker tanks in New York that seem to specialize in bashing television news published a study titled "The International Newshole, an Endangered Species."  This study was about newspapers.  It documents how deeply ten of our most acclaimed newspapers have slashed foreign news coverage in the past two decades.  In 1971, over 10 percent of their editorial space was devoted to foreign news.  In 1988 foreign coverage dropped to a quarter  of that, 2.6 percent, and this is in our best newspapers.  Two point six per cent foreign news coverage at the very time when it became indisputably clear that Americaís future depends on having a better understanding of the world beyond the oceans.  Foreign news coverage was slashed  by our best newspapers at the very time when we watched our economy falter in the face of foreign competition.  I mean this in no self-serving way, because we make a lot of mistakes and in some important ways the evening news is not as good as your average newspaper.

In television, too, there are powerful forces arguing against foreign news.  Consultants tell local station news directors that foreign news is a turnoff and you donít see much foreign news on local station newscasts.  At the networks now accountants mill and swarm, damning what they see as the comparatively high price tag of foreign coverage.  Too often the question  now comes up:  "Why do you need all those foreign bureaus and foreign correspondents?  Why not just buy pictures from somebody else and narrate them from New York?"

For years, newspapers asked one of the right questions, which was, "Isnít it dangerous to have all those anchormen and managing editors making decisions, setting the nationís priorities on the evening news, while cooped-up in windowless rooms on the west side of Manhattan?"  Now our accountantsí basic question is, "Come on, Dan, do you really ever have to leave New York?"

As our profession, our craft--journalism--becomes more and more competitive, all of us are falling back on tried and true local news formulas.  We have by and large accepted the proposition that people donít care about foreign news, donít really care much about hard news, that feel-good news, entertainment and features, and gossip sell better than anything too serious, and certainly sell better than anything very disturbing.

I believe that kind of talk is wrong.  I believe that kind of talk is dangerous.  And I know that kind of talk has nothing to do with leadership and public service.

Using public opinion polls as a limited tool is one thing.  Using them as an excuse is another.  And being slaves to them is yet another and even worse.

Harry Truman once said, "If Moses had taken an opinion poll, he would never have left Egypt."

Partly because of public opinion polls and fear of them, leadership in government has become so rare that the Kennedy library at Harvard will this year bestow its first annual Profiles in Courage Award on a public official who follows his conscience instead of the polls.

And sad as that is--and itís pretty sad--Iím afraid we may have to start thinking about a new Pulitzer Prize category, an award for journalistic leadership.

Where are the publishers, editors, and reporters of grit, gumption, and guts?  Where are the ones who will follow their consciences, or even a nose for news, instead of public opinion polls?  Leadership is of course a problem for us who like to report the news that others make.  We are trained to set our opinions aside insofar as thatís humanly possible, to try to keep open minds.  By and large we arenít joiners, and we know we donít have any secret formulas to answer important questions.  So we ask, who are we to lead?

But leadership is a problem for everyone.  The members of Broderís pussyfooting Congress have excuses that are just as good as ours, and so do those around the White House.  I do think politicians are ducking leadership, and so are we.

George Bernard Shaw once said, "Newspapers are unable to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization."  Today we might say we are unable to discriminate between the breakup of the Trump marriage and the breakup of the Communist world.  Leadership is a willingness to distinguish between whatís just interesting and whatís important.

Now, when someone says that some stories are more important than others, he or she is apt to be labeled an elitist, someone who doesnít understand what quote "real people" care about.  That is the defense for trash TV and for trash tabloids, and itís one of the defenses for reducing foreign coverage.

There are a lot of people in my end of the business and yours who say "real people" wonít care unless it bleeds or burns.  There are a lot of news doctors out there who say "real people" care only about entertainment , sex, and cats.

They say "real people" want the words American and United States plastered on news like flags on a campaign platform.

I donít buy it.  Iím from a family of people who worked their backs and hands.  Sam Houston State Teacherís College has about as much Ivy on it as your average McDonaldís.

I didnít grow up with, and I didnít go to school with, any of the "real people" these news consultants talk about.  I travel a lot and talk to a lot of people, but none fits that description of real people.

The people I meet are concerned about their jobs and their families and their country.  They want their lives to have meaning and they worry that their childrenís lives may not be better than theirs.  They are struggling to understand the change they know is happening all around them.  I think they would be offended to hear what some editors and reporters say they care about.

Those who say the "real people" only care about trash TV and tabloid front pages are the ones who are out of touch.  They are the elitists.

In Search of Excellence  became a runaway best-seller because it talked to the real concerns of real people.  Americaís real people want a country of excellence and quality and principle.

Let me relate a story a friend told me.  Heís rebuilding a house in upstate New York.

One day not too long ago my friend paid a visit to his contractor.  After the usual chatter about the weather, the contractor asked, "What about Mandela?"  For the next half hour, he says, the discussion with the contractor, the plumber, and the plumberís helper was about South Africa, Mikhail Gorbechev, and how long Fidel Castro can hold out.

Television has become much more than a means of entertainment and information.  It is that, but itís become much more.  We have become, like it or not, part of a kind of worldwide electronic democracy.

We saw the English-language barriers in Tiananmen Square and heard "We Shall Overcome" in front of the Berlin Wall. Television has become a two-way visual telephone.  We talk to the world, and the world talks back to us.
But if we keep shutting down one end of the telephone because it "doesnít sell newspapers" or because "the ratings go down when weíre overseas,"  forget leadership.  We may make money.  Ratings and circulation may go up.  But we wonít lead, and we will have prostituted a public trust.

Okay, you say, so what are your answers?  Whatís your idea?

Well, for one, simple as it may sound--and I hope it sounds simple because we can accomplish it--we need a rededication to original reporting and original analysis, by first rate writers, reporters, and thinkers.  Sometimes thatíll mean paying money for more reporters and better minds and giving them a chance to do what they do best and what they want to do.

Television news and newspapers are in danger of sinking into a miasma of mediocrity, with a whole new generation of hacks turning out cliched images which match their cliched writing in formats that are degenerating into formulas.
 Responsible, honest reporting--play no favorites, pull no punches reporting--says we are losing our appeal to the best and brightest of the next generation.  Weíre now attracting in journalism more than our fair share of lightweights and careerists instead of writers, reporters, and dreamers.  Too many of us are giving up our reputations as organizations that will pay any price, go any distance to get an important story.  Too many of us are becoming known as news packagers, not news gatherers.

We in print and broadcast can dish it out and we should dish it out.  Many politicians are not doing their jobs at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, not around most state capitals, not around most city halls or courthouses.

The Time  cover is right:  unwilling to lead, politicians are letting America slip into paralysis.  But we in journalism must not stop with the politicians.  There is such a thing as journalistic leadership and it has nothing to do with arrogance and self-righteousness.  It has nothing to do with ratings or circulation or bigger profits.  It has to do with public service and caring and patriotism.

The Time  article talks about a "frightening inability to define and debate Americanís emerging problems,"  a now-nowism, our collective shortsightedness," and it concludes:  the list of missed opportunities and challenges is already much too long.  The sooner government sets about doing its job again, the better."  To which I say, "Amen."

But I add, the sooner we in the press set about doing our job again, the better.

And now I am glad to take your tough questions.  Thank you.
 
 

Checklist for Evaluating the Argument of Dan Rather's Speech

STEP 1:   Check each item listed below which accurately describes the positive aspects of the essay being graded.  This section describes the basic requirements for a well-written essay. (Grader one should check column one.  Grader two should check column two):

                                                        Section One:

___-___1.  The writer clearly identifies the stance taken in the by Dan Rather about leadership in the nineties.

___-___2.  The writer analyzes how the logical appeals make the argument more effective.

___-___3.  The writer analyzes how the emotional appeals  make the argument more effective.

___-___4.  The writer analyzes how the author's manipulation of diction and syntax, selection of detail, and other stylistic devices helps to convince the audience of journalists and broadcasters to want to start doing their job again.

___-___5.  The writer discusses the creditability of the speaker based on the standards of ethos explained in this chapter.

___-___6.  The writer supports the discussion of each  persuasive device with strong evidence (a minimum of three embedded bits of quotes per paragraph).

___-___7.  The diction and sentence structure of this essay communicates a clear message.

___-___8.  The organization of this essay aids in communicating a clear message.
 

___-___9.  The grammar aids in communicating a clear message.
 

STEP 2:  Score the essay by adding one point for each item checked from the list.   Put your score in the "Grader One Score" slot below.   Grader two does the same.  The final grade is determind by adding the two graders' scores and dividing by two:

                                                         RESULTS:
GRADER ONE SCORE: _____ + GRADER TWO SCORE _____ DIVIDED BY TWO = _____

Note:  This number must correspond to the score given by the teacher or it is wrong.

STEP 3:   The checks in section one correspond with the checks in section two.  If an item in section one is left blank, the reason may be explained in the corresponding check in section two.  These describe some of the common errors seen for each requirement.  If the check in
section two does not adequately describe why the corresponding number in section one was left blank, the grader should write an explanation in the blank next to that section two number.

                                                     Section Two:

___-___1.  The writer's summary of Dan Rather's stance is more simplistic than those of the better essays.

___-___2.  The writer  names the logical appeals but adds no more discussion.

___-___3.  The writer  names the emotionl appeals but adds no mor discussion.

___-___4. The writer simply catalogues some examples of the  author's manipulation of diction and syntax, selection of detail, and other stylistic devices without relating them to the authors' use of those devices to convince the reader.

___-___5.  The discussion of the ethos of the speaker is more limited than  those of the highest-scoring essays.

___-___6.  Although adequate in number, the evidence in this essay is not as convincing as those of the top-scoring essays.

___-___7.  A  few lapses in diction or syntax may be present, but the message is clear.

___-___8.  The organization of this essay is less appropriate than those of the top-scoring essays.

___-___9.  The writer makes consistent errors in grammar and/or other basic elements of composition.

School House Books, Inc. has made a careful effort to make proper acknowledgment for any reference or link to copyrighted materials.  Any error of omission is purely inadvertent and will be corrected immediately upon receipt of a written notice from the company to The Permissions Department, School House Books, Inc., 921 Pembina Trail, Detroit Lakes, MN     56501.